Bug #2886
closedIMAP protocol detection is incomplete
Added by Allen Ma almost 6 years ago. Updated 5 months ago.
Description
I tried both reading offline pcap file and capturing imap packet lively, but failed.
The same testing methods are used to test POP3 successfully, which I extend on my own version.
1.reading offline pcap file, I've attached the ones I tested.
sudo suricata -c ~/suricata/suricata.yaml -r ~/pcap/imap/imap_aliyun_outlook_short.pcapng -k none --init-errors-fatal
2.captuing imap packets lively.
sudo suricata -c ~/suricata/suricata.yaml -i eno16777736 --init-errors-fatal
/** IMAP */
AppLayerProtoDetectRegisterProtocol(ALPROTO_IMAP, "imap");
if (AppLayerProtoDetectConfProtoDetectionEnabled("tcp", "imap")) {
// Is AppLayerProtoDetectPMRegisterPatternCS OK as it's case-sensitive? Will it detect upper-cased CAPABILITY?
if (AppLayerProtoDetectPMRegisterPatternCS(IPPROTO_TCP, ALPROTO_IMAP,
"1|20|capability", 12, 0, STREAM_TOSERVER) < 0)
{
SCLogInfo("imap proto registration failure\n");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
} else {
SCLogInfo("Protocol detection and parser disabled for %s protocol.",
"imap");
}
Files
imap-ssl.pcapng (9.91 KB) imap-ssl.pcapng | Allen Ma, 03/18/2019 04:38 AM | ||
imap.cap (30.7 KB) imap.cap | Allen Ma, 03/18/2019 04:38 AM |
Updated by Allen Ma almost 6 years ago
[coapk@localhost ~]$ sudo suricata --build-info This is Suricata version 5.0.0-dev (rev e710b06) Features: NFQ PCAP_SET_BUFF AF_PACKET HAVE_PACKET_FANOUT LIBCAP_NG LIBNET1.1 HAVE_HTP_URI_NORMALIZE_HOOK PCRE_JIT HAVE_NSS HAVE_LUA HAVE_LIBJANSSON TLS MAGIC RUST SIMD support: SSE_4_2 SSE_4_1 SSE_3 Atomic intrisics: 1 2 4 8 16 byte(s) 64-bits, Little-endian architecture GCC version 4.8.5 20150623 (Red Hat 4.8.5-36), C version 199901 compiled with _FORTIFY_SOURCE=0 L1 cache line size (CLS)=64 thread local storage method: __thread compiled with LibHTP v0.5.28, linked against LibHTP v0.5.28 Suricata Configuration: AF_PACKET support: yes eBPF support: no XDP support: no PF_RING support: no NFQueue support: yes NFLOG support: no IPFW support: no Netmap support: no DAG enabled: no Napatech enabled: no WinDivert enabled: no Unix socket enabled: yes Detection enabled: yes Libmagic support: yes libnss support: yes libnspr support: yes libjansson support: yes liblzma support: no hiredis support: no hiredis async with libevent: no Prelude support: no PCRE jit: yes LUA support: yes libluajit: no libgeoip: no Non-bundled htp: no Old barnyard2 support: no Hyperscan support: no Libnet support: yes liblz4 support: no Rust support: yes (default) Rust strict mode: no Rust debug mode: no Rust compiler: rustc 1.32.0 Rust cargo: cargo 1.32.0 Install suricatasc: yes Install suricata-update: no Profiling enabled: no Profiling locks enabled: no Development settings: Coccinelle / spatch: no Unit tests enabled: no Debug output enabled: no Debug validation enabled: no Generic build parameters: Installation prefix: /usr Configuration directory: /etc/suricata/ Log directory: /var/log/suricata/ --prefix /usr --sysconfdir /etc --localstatedir /var --datarootdir /usr/share Host: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Compiler: gcc (exec name) / gcc (real) GCC Protect enabled: no GCC march native enabled: yes GCC Profile enabled: no Position Independent Executable enabled: no CFLAGS -g -O2 -march=native -I${srcdir}/../rust/gen/c-headers PCAP_CFLAGS SECCFLAGS
Updated by Victor Julien over 5 years ago
- Target version changed from 5.0beta1 to TBD
Updated by Philippe Antoine over 1 year ago
- Subject changed from IMAP fail to register app layer protocol detection to IMAP protocol detection is incomplete
- Label Good First Issue added
Problem is that IMAP is not recognized by Suricata on classic pcaps as available here
https://wiki.wireshark.org/IMAP
Updated by Victor Julien over 1 year ago
- Status changed from New to Assigned
- Assignee changed from Community Ticket to Philippe Antoine
- Target version changed from TBD to 8.0.0-beta1
- Label Needs backport to 6.0, Needs backport to 7.0 added
Updated by Philippe Antoine over 1 year ago
- Related to Task #2757: improve protocol detection added
Updated by Victor Julien over 1 year ago
- Status changed from Assigned to New
- Assignee changed from Philippe Antoine to Community Ticket
Updated by Victor Julien over 1 year ago
Good issue for outreachy contribution phase.
Updated by Bruno Franca about 1 year ago
- Assignee changed from Community Ticket to Bruno Franca
Updated by Bruno Franca about 1 year ago
- Status changed from New to In Progress
Updated by Bruno Franca about 1 year ago
Hello people,
I am trying to do this task and I have some doubt. Is it supposed to me finalize the implementation of IMAP protocol ?
Updated by Juliana Fajardini Reichow about 1 year ago
Bruno Franca wrote in #note-13:
Hello people,
I am trying to do this task and I have some doubt. Is it supposed to me finalize the implementation of IMAP protocol ?
Sorry for not answering this before, I thought I had - maybe I did in some other channel.
Yes, that's the idea. Do you have further questions about the process?
Updated by OISF Ticketbot about 1 year ago
- Label deleted (
Beginner, Good First Issue, Needs backport to 6.0, Needs backport to 7.0, Outreachy, Protocol)
Updated by Shivani Bhardwaj about 1 year ago
- Label Beginner, Good First Issue, Needs backport to 6.0, Outreachy, Protocol added
Updated by OISF Ticketbot about 1 year ago
- Label deleted (
Needs backport to 6.0)
Updated by OISF Ticketbot about 1 year ago
- Label deleted (
Needs backport to 7.0)
Updated by Juliana Fajardini Reichow about 1 year ago
- Status changed from In Progress to New
- Assignee changed from Bruno Franca to Community Ticket
Hi there, according to our guidelines for stale tickets, I'm unassigning this ticket.
Thanks for your interest in our project, and feel free to reach out in case you have time and want to contribute to Suricata again, or if you're still working on this task! :) :)
Refer to:
https://forum.suricata.io/t/important-outreachy-contribution-phase-wrap-up-prs-claimed-tickets-and-more
https://docs.suricata.io/en/latest/devguide/contributing/contribution-process.html#stale-tickets-policy
Updated by Juliana Fajardini Reichow 11 months ago
- Related to Feature #3244: IMAP Support added
Updated by Mahmoud Maatuq 11 months ago
- Status changed from New to Assigned
- Assignee changed from Community Ticket to Mahmoud Maatuq
Hi team,
I'm going to work on this ticket.
just to make sure I understood the scope of this ticket correctly, in this ticket we should complete the detection patterns for IMAP, no dissection/parsing right?
e.g for now this "1|20|capability" is the only pattern implemented to detect IMAP, and we should extend/modify this to be able to comprehensively detect flows as imap.
Updated by Juliana Fajardini Reichow 11 months ago
Mahmoud Maatuq wrote in #note-26:
Hi team,
I'm going to work on this ticket.
just to make sure I understood the scope of this ticket correctly, in this ticket we should complete the detection patterns for IMAP, no dissection/parsing right?
e.g for now this "1|20|capability" is the only pattern implemented to detect IMAP, and we should extend/modify this to be able to comprehensively detect flows as imap.
Hi, I think that can be a good start. If we manage to have Suricata recognize IMAP traffic from the source shared by Philippe on one of the comments above, that'd be good!
And add a simple Suricata-verify test to go with the contribution, too. :)
We may want more in the future, but then we'll communicate and we can agree together if you'd be available to work on that or not.
Updated by Mahmoud Maatuq 11 months ago
Hey,
Unless i missed something, what is mentioned here https://wiki.wireshark.org/IMAP doesn't say much about detection patterns for imap, also by looking at proto_reg_handoff_imap() here https://gitlab.com/wireshark/wireshark/-/blob/master/epan/dissectors/packet-imap.c?ref_type=heads, I think dissector handoff is done based on port 143, 993 for imap, imaps respectively, there is no pattern, I think this wireshark's way for most of the dissectors is using port and continue with the dissection phase and through dissection it will confirm/reject the protocol.
Here we need a different approach, anyway I'm looking now at this rfc https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9051, hopefully will get some time to implement protocol patterns.
Updated by Shivani Bhardwaj 11 months ago
Hi!
I'm unaware of the details of IMAP so far but Suricata offers port based protocol registering as well. Look for `AppLayerProtoDetectPPRegister`, the implementation is followed by protocols like TFTP and others.
Updated by Mahmoud Maatuq 11 months ago
- Status changed from Assigned to In Progress
Hi,
will use port to register the protocol, but won't depend on this as it's a very weak way to detect protocols, but i got the idea from what is implemented in TFTP, i can go ahead with the implementation, thank you.
Updated by Philippe Antoine 9 months ago
- Status changed from In Progress to In Review
Updated by Philippe Antoine 9 months ago
Updated by Philippe Antoine 5 months ago
- Status changed from In Review to Resolved
https://github.com/OISF/suricata/pull/11219
I do not think we want to backport this, do we ?